A response from the RRF to the Y1 Phonics Screening Test is now on the RRF website


http://www.rrf.org.uk/pdf/RRF%20respons ... 0check.pdf

I haven't even got to the end of the response yet and feel the need to post on the subject of "non-words". I read: "Non words are words that do not have meaning like ‘mif’ or ‘chup’." How many real words can you think of that end with "-if"? This is a spelling that I don't think exists in English. I know Debbie has commented before on "illegal" spellings.

The '-if' spelling at the end of a word can't be regarded as illegal because of the common word 'if'.

Jenny C.

A quick look in my dictionary finds the word "kif" (also "kef"), 1. a state of dreamy euphoria. 2. any drug, esp. marijuana, that produces this state when smoked; also the acronym "GIF" , for graphic interchange format. Not in the dictionary, but I recall the product name "Jif", a scouring powder.

Yes, there are the examples cited by kenm, and also aperitif, motif, massif and serif - probably all from French, but nevertheless regarded as English words.

Just as the existence of two different phonemes can be established on the basis of only one minimal pair, I think it may be the case that a spelling is 'legal' even if there is only one word embodying it.

Jenny C.

LOL! 'Jif' is now called 'Cif', Ken!

I wonder how many people think it's called /kif/?

I don't like the new name at all. I can't imagine what prompted the change!!!!

As I posted I knew you would find some! At least they were obscure French words and that daft name for kitchen cleaner.

The original name wasn't daft.

"Jif: your worktops spotless in a jiffy!"

Then why wasn't it called Jiff?

I thought it would be useful to have a direct link here to Jenny Chew's conference talk paper about the Y1 reading check:

The Year 1 Phonics Screening Check:
What will it be like? How can we be sure our children succeed?

http://rrf.org.uk/pdf/conf2011/RRF_Conf ... 0_Chew.pdf

In her paper, Jenny wrote:



It does appear that the message re. the DfE's revised criteria for synthetic phonics programmes has not been made clearly or strongly enough. Will school inspectors be trained to pick up on this?

http://dfe.gov.uk/schools/teachingandle ... honic-work

I flagged this up on a different thread a few days ago and got absolutely no reaction, which I found surprising.
( viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4989 )

It actually comes from the Ofsted training document but the Level descriptor I quote will be in DfES materials used by teachers to inform their teaching.

This is the description of what a L2 reader is expected to be capable of:




They use more than one strategy, such as phonic, graphic, syntactic and contextual, in reading unfamiliar words and establishing meaning

If this is in a level descriptor it will be taken as a necessary thing to be taught and as endorsement of multi-cueing strategies. I am How about everyone else?

I did take your posting seriously, Maizie, but felt that I'd better read the OFSTED documents properly before responding - i.e.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/gett%20...%20ding-early
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/read%20...%20n-literacy

I've read the first carefully, but have only skimmed the second. They both have the same publication date (21 October 2011), so it's very puzzling that the one for younger children says that something no longer applies whereas the one for older children implies that it does still apply. I'll see what I can find out.

Jenny C.

What shocked me, Jenny, was the fact that the extract I have quoted comes direct from the DfE/ QCDA descriptors for L2. They can be found here:

http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stage ... index.aspx

Now, I can see that it might be argued that the use of 'other cues' is for comprehension rather than word identification, but somehow I don't think so

The question in my mind is, is this just left over from the old NLS descriptors and no-body has noticed the inconsistency, or, was that sentence left there deliberately?

Does whoever prepared the Ofsted training materials not see the inconsistency?

The following is my take on it, Maizie - I haven't yet tried to get any clarification from anyone else.

The OFSTED document relating to Years 3-11 refers to the bit you quote as being from 'the current National Curriculum', which is presumably the one that has been in force for some years. I think this is being revised, but the revision has not yet replaced the 'current' version. Legislation is probably needed before this can happen.

What puzzles me, therefore, is not that multi-cueing is still there in black and white but rather that there is inconsistency between two OFSTED documents published on the same day. The one for the years below Y3 quotes the bit you quote but prefaces it with this:

'Although the National Curriculum is supposed to provide broad benchmarks for attainment at Key Stages 1 and 2, it does not now reflect the government’s expectations that children should be taught to decode words using phonics as the prime approach. The current attainment target for reading at Level 2 says: ‘They [pupils] use more than one strategy, such as phonic, graphic, syntactic and contextual, in reading unfamiliar words and establishing meaning.'

So this pre-Y3 document quotes the multi-cueing bit but implies that there is a problem with it, whereas the Years 3-11 document quotes it without any implication of a problem.

Jenny C.